Advice for poor would-be adventurers

Lucerne hammers are stupidly optimized but the Bec de corbin is pretty much a straight upgrade.

>In a case where a person has no gear that they need ready to hand, of course it won't be there to compare.
Yes, surely he would never need the provisions, tent or supplies he's carrying. All of that is disposable and some other porter happens to be carrying all important gear.

Their bags are easily dropped if they need to flee. Gear like glasses, hats, watches and camera are all readily available and also easy to discard.

What do you think you are disproving with this picture? They appear to be satisfying the principles very well.

Asserting that most people understand the concept of reasonable load is not the same as asserting that all types people can carry all types of loads.

>Check Oberyn vs the mountain in game of thrones

Someone like , , , or would all need to cut off their backpack straps in a hurry. Or are these all your so-called clueless chumps who failed to heed the lessons of their respective cultures?

Yes, if attacked for his life he will tend to leave it or drop it to fight. If it's the case that he needs ALL of it to survive, then the earlier advice of "be reasonable about what you can carry" doesn't apply, because it's not unreasonable because all of it is essential. If it's not essential, your criticism doesn't apply.

No they wouldn't. Youtube a video of someone actually using those types of harness and you'll clearly see how easily they come off.

It's a single forehead strap for a reason.

>What do you think you are disproving with this picture?
Find an average person living in the city and ask them to pack for a hike in the appalachians without looking anything up, see how well they'll do.

>Asserting that most people understand the concept of reasonable load
The assertion is that not everybody among those most people have learned how to deal with that "reasonable load" in the same way an Andean or Himalayan porter has, or in a way that would work in a foot-only environment like a dungeon. A mongolian might never have to learn how to carry their equipment on them because they have pack animals; a modern suburban european might never have to learn how to travel with all their provisions strapped to them because they have a car. A sherpa's idea of a reasonable load is what he can feasibly carry on his back; an American's is what he can hold in his SUV.

Look at those linked pictures again and notice the absence of a forehead strap in all but every picture but the last, who is also wearing a backpack.

>If it's the case that he needs ALL of it to survive, then the earlier advice of "be reasonable about what you can carry" doesn't apply, because it's not unreasonable because all of it is essential.
Ah, so suddenly you are arguing that rather than it all being useless cargo, that all of it is essential gear.
Has it occurred to you that both what he needs to survive and things he probably doesn't need, like changes of clothes, are both in that pack, and that your mythical division between cargo and gear is just that?